I think with those 3 bands, since they've all put at least a few albms and haven't deviated too much from the original formula they got popular with, Pitchfork is not excited about them like something totally new.

I think they all kinda bounced back from slightly disappointing albums to put out solid albums this year though.

I don't think Hazards is that different from their prior records - the first 3 which I believe got quite high ratings by Pitchfork. The only difference is they made it a full concept record - something they'd already done in shorter bits on EP's or long tracks within albums.

If you didn't like their prior work, I don't see how Hazards could change your mind.

Before knowing they were doing no reviews this week, it really pissed me off. It's pretty rare for them to post a review the week BEFORE an album comes out. In this case, it was a review that ripped the artist, so I took it they were trying to beat the British press' Monday reviews and, of course, the US Tuesday reviews hoping to 'skew the public opinion' before time and be 'oh so influential.'

I'm not too familiar with the actual album yet to say whether or not I agree. I doubt seriously it merits a 4.9 score though.

The gangsta rap tracks were the only songs I was listening to in the 90's. I listened to everything else in the 2000's. It was like a trip down memory lane.

That list was AWESOME. I think I just discovered 10 bands. You made my day, dear friend. Freaking sucks that I lost my waffles and what.cd account during my move (2-3 weeks without net)... like the kids say: FML.

Props to the site with the thread I'm resurrecting from all these years back, and I can't quite think of the last time Pitchfork had a big impact on my music taste, but I'm talking about my favorites, and I like to hear what Pitchfork is up to, we indeed share interests. That sentence was meant to be complimentary, 'cause I'm actually ... [shakes his head]

I want to try to imagine the writer of this article is here, and I'd appreciate to hear the other side. A big news item at Pitchfork last year, something they were really excited about, was Sun Kil Moon being a brat. He's a musician. There was another band involved. He's also an American Dude and he said dumb things that didn't hurt nobody. This Pitchfork review of his new album begins its first two paragraphs with criticisms against him. The news they're sharing. They don't like it. The writer says

Quote

The end result of these developments is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine Sun Kil Moon's music outside of how it, and he, are discussed on social media.

The writer says that. Ok, so what's being said is the writer of Pitchfork, his social media is talking about the news item from his site, and now he can't stop thinking about it. Second paragraph. In which he also mentions, and I didn't read it but let's say that's definitely a bad move on his part, "disparaged a female journalist (and Pitchfork contributing editor)," no good, and I've never heard of it until it's mentioned in the second paragraph of this review I'm accidentally reading.

The third paragraph begins:

Quote

Even setting all that aside

Third paragraph. I'm rolling on the ground here. The review is 6 paragraphs, and the third paragraph starts by mentioning this. My ground is laughing. My building is cracking up. My street's got its hands on its hips, I tell ya.

Here's the link but, in a social world I'm furthering this type of gossip by mentioning it and everything, so I recommend that if you don't already go to Pitchfork this isn't a reason to go to Pitchfork (and I don't wanna let it be, omg):

Yup, Pitchfork is garbage. They don't review music; they review contexts for said music, and the feelings they get listening to the music, and the content of the lyrics. Even if their reviewers had actual music knowledge, I doubt they'd know how to apply it to a review.

Can you imagine a world in which people had similarly low standards for movie reviews?

Though in fairness, (1) music is exceedingly difficult to write about, and (2) it's not just Pitchfork, really. Music journalists that don't know how to talk about music (90% of them?) write about context and the creative process and leave you with no meaningful impression of what the music itself is doing.

Yup, Pitchfork is garbage. They don't review music; they review contexts for said music, and the feelings they get listening to the music, and the content of the lyrics. Even if their reviewers had actual music knowledge, I doubt they'd know how to apply it to a review.

The music itself is irrelevant to them, it's all about the cultural context within which the music (and more specifically, the artist) resides. They don't review albums, they review zeitgeist.